For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ---Ephesians 6:12


"The age of casual Catholicism is over; the age of heroic Catholicism has begun. We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead must be Catholics by CONVICTION." ---Fr. Terrence Henry TOR, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Obama...Pretty Sickening




Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief and Editor At Large at Human Events.com, reminds us of a decision Presidential Candidate and Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama made about the Born Alive Infants Bill. He opposed it. In fact he was one of very few who opposed it.

I will reprint the entire article since it can be read for free at various websites. All due credit is given. The above cartoon I snagged from a similar article here.


CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
January 09, 2008

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.

(end of article)



Sheeeesh! That really gives me the creeps. To think that Obama or Hillary might be our next President gives me no faith whatsoever in the intelligence or character of Democrat voters.

We are but one Supreme Court Justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade, and our party acts unsatisfied with the current roster of candidates from which to choose? I would take even Ron Paul over any baby-killing Devilrats than have them regain power and set the pro-life cause back 20 years with Breyer-Ginsburg type appointments.

Mr. Jeffery makes his case very well. And we should never mince words or use euphemisms when describing the act of abortion. Infanticide or murder are the only other synonyms I can think of that are suitable substitutes.


6 comments:

Katrinka Yobotz said...

Fred Thompson is not the right alternative to Obama. Here's why.

According to this Catholic voter's guide at http://wakefieldnews.blogspot.com/search?q=sizing+up+the+presidential+candidates

Abortion
Abortion is the dominant political issue. Being pro-abortion disqualifies a candidate from a Catholic vote. Catholics can justly support politicians who advocate incremental means toward eliminating abortion. All instances of abortion are morally wrong. ...

Alan Keyes - Republican - 100%
Fred Thompson - Republican - 85%

Marriage and the Family
Marriage was instituted prior to the state and should be recognized by the state as something inviolate and necessary to the common good. Prudential judgments about law and public policy should always seek to strengthen marriage and families. So-called same-sex marriages cannot be recognized
by the Catholic Church, and civil unions are likely to undermine marriage and damage its foundational role in society. ...

Alan Keyes - Republican - 100%
Fred Thompson - Republican - 70%

Alan Keyes' candidacy is being hidden by the media, and even some of the Republican party. Why is that? I think it's because they don't want to risk having a real conservative as president, and most importantly, they know he can win.

Even so, voting is not like placing a bet on a horse you think will win. We must vote our conscience for the person we would most want in that office.

1389 said...

This is one of many reasons why I would never vote for him. For a lot more, visit Atlas Shrugs.

O/T:

Everyone, I'd like your help:

Here's an article that I have been asked to pass along and to make into a "blogburst":

Balkan Terrorists Target Euro Police Convention

Please read the article. If you like it...

...and you are a member of StumbleUpon, please give it a Stumble, and, if you have time, a review. Also, please send it along to your friends on SU and ask them to do the same.

Those of you who are bloggers, and who would like to re-post the article, please email me for a text file (or click here to contact me).

Feel free to post it in forums or wherever else you can.

Thanks very much!

1389

St. Blogustine said...

I agree that we must vote our conscience. That is why Fred is my candidate.

Back in 1996 I voted for Keyes in the Illinois primary, even though he had no delegates, because of his message. It was not until much later, when he ran against Obama for Illinois Senator, that I realized Keyes never intends to win any election. I loves to run but I suspect he secretly lives in fear of actually serving. While being wonderful in debates, he is awful and self destructing on the campaign trail.

As for hiding his candidacy, he participated in the Des Moines Register Republican debate and grabbed NO headlines whatsoever. Is he even on the ballot? In any state??? Even his own???

I am not a one-issue-voter. While Fred does not support the Life Amendment, he does seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. I do not see the L.A. as even slightly probable in the near future. Fred is strongly conservative on all issues and is the best candidate available.

St. Blogustine said...

Spammers will not have their comments posted even if they respond first to the article in question.

Kevin Gleeson said...

It would be a mistake to divert pro-life votes to a splinter candidate, leaving Giuliani to consolidate united abortion Republicans. By the first poster's logic, I could write-in myself for President on principle.

Fred is the most pro-life conservative, er, "viable" candidate running. I'm backing Fred!

Marie's Two Cents said...

Off Topic:

Ok FredHeads!

You probably dont know me from Adam but this is an important message if we want Fred to win!

We need to email Mary Matlin (Head of Fred's campaign) or Fred himself and tell them they need to change strategy. All I have been hearing from the nay-sayers is they think Thompson is to sick to be President which obviously he isnt. And it's not true but he does need to hold more press Conferences and be out there in the public and more in the news and etc..

If we really want Fred to win we have to show him more support than ever at this point while he is visiting his mom in Tennessee, a special place for me because my mom was born in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. I hope I spelled that correctly.

And all my mom's friends are voting for Fred.

But, he has to be out in the news more and have facetime wherever he can get it

All us FredHeads HAVE to unite to get Fred's message across. We have to be persistant.

At this point I think anything goes.

But us Thompson's Troops/FredHeads Have to unite for the common cause and good for America!!

http://mariestwocents.blogspot.com

Love, Marie